Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the side-effect profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), so the description need not restate safety. It adds real context beyond that: requests become tracked demand tagged with the build context, and use_case drives prioritization. It stops short of stating auth requirements or that duplicates are merely discouraged, not blocked.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core action is front-loaded and the routing guidance follows immediately with zero filler. Two paragraphs are slightly heavier than strictly necessary, but each sentence carries actionable content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, and the key parameter's role well. It omits auth/prerequisite context and gives no hint of what filing returns (e.g., a request ID to vote on later), a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 62%, so the schema documents most fields. The description nonetheless adds meaning the schema lacks — that use_case is the single most useful field for prioritization and should be filled even when brief, and that capability_gap should be tagged for clustering. This goes beyond the schema's field definitions for the highest-value parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Request a capability the AALY platform does not have today') with clear scope. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like file_support_ticket and vote_feature_request, which serve different intents.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly prescribes the workflow: call list_feature_requests FIRST, prefer vote_feature_request over a duplicate, and file here whenever a capabilities guide says something is not implemented. The when-to-use condition and the alternative are both named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.